AdLit.org is a national multimedia project offering information and resources to the parents and educators of struggling adolescent readers and writers. AdLit.org is an educational initiative of WETA, the flagship public television and radio station in the nation's capital, and is funded by Carnegie Corporation of New York and by the Ann B. and Thomas L. Friedman Family Foundation.

Developing Academic Language: Got Words?

By: E. Sutton Flynt and William G. Brozo

Concerns about how to build academic vocabulary and weave its instruction into curricula are common among classroom teachers. This article reviews the research and offers some practical suggestions for teachers.

In this article:

The prior installment of this department (in
October, 2007) introduced the idea of toolkit
elements for content teachers. We asserted that
one of those essential elements is the skill of enriching
students' academic language. In this installment, we
highlight academic vocabulary and what professional
opinion and research have to say about tools for building
word knowledge in the content areas. By using the
expression academic vocabulary we are referring to
word knowledge that makes it possible for students to
engage with, produce, and talk about texts that are valued
in school (Brozo & Simpson, 2007).

Pearson, Hiebert, and Kamil (2007) noted, "After a
nearly 15-year absence from center stage, vocabulary
has returned to a prominent place in discussions of
reading, and it is alive and well in reading instruction
and reading research" (p, 282). Vocabulary study and
practice received new impetus with the release of the
National Reading Panel's (NRP) report (National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development
[NICHD], 2000), and since then we have seen a plethora
of grants and research studies devoted to the topic.

The RAND Reading Study Group (2002) reasserted
the essential relationship vocabulary knowledge has to
overall reading comprehension. This relationship is
even more significant for content texts due to the burden
they place on children to understand new and numerous
technical words (Harmon, Hedrick, & Wood,
2005). Although we know students need to possess sophisticated
language tools to explore information and
concepts in content area materials, fundamental questions
remain in the minds of many teachers. Two of the
most basic questions are the following:

What should attention to academic vocabulary in
the content areas look like?

Which approaches to vocabulary acquisition will
have the biggest impact on children's academic
achievement, especially those who are at the highest
risk of failure?

The answers to these questions are found in one
overarching principle to guide teachers, regardless of
the specific vocabulary practices they employ: Greater
attention should be paid to developing students' academic
vocabularies in systematic ways.

How important is systematic vocabulary instruction?

If one were to query upper elementary teachers about
their attention to vocabulary, most would say that they
do teach vocabulary to their students. Recently, Scott,
Jamieson-Noel, and Asselin (2003) found, in their observations
of 23 ethnically diverse classrooms, that
only 6% of school time was centered on vocabulary
development, and in the core academic subject areas
only 1.4% of instructional time was spent developing
vocabulary knowledge. As reported by the
researchers, the instruction observed was too often
more mentioning and assigning rather than teaching.
Bolstering the argument for the apparent paucity of indepth
attention to vocabulary instruction, Walsh
(2003) found that none of the most widely used basal
programs provided the attention to vocabulary necessary
to increase comprehension. Coupling Walsh's
findings with those from Dunn, Bonner, and Huskee's
(2007) report of students who placed at the 50th percentile
in reading comprehension (increasing their
scores by as much as 30 percentile points after having
received direct and meaningful vocabulary instruction)
suggests that all teachers need to examine
their vocabulary practices with special attention to
systematic approaches to expanding word knowledge
for children.

What should teachers do?

Almost all of the studies included in the NRP report
(NICHD, 2000) found that direct instructional approaches
improved both vocabulary and comprehension
(Kamil, 2004).

The RAND Reading Study Group Report (2002)
also stressed the value of systematic vocabulary instruction
for building comprehension. In spite of admonitions
from research, finding time for direct and
systematic instruction of large numbers of words from
the content areas presents teachers with major challenges
(Anderson & Nagy, 1991; Stahl & Fairbanks,
1986). What follows is a list of evidence-based recommendations
for developing students' academic language
in meaningful ways. We assert that theses
recommendations can serve as guidelines for a range
of specific practices teachers can undertake to expand
word learning in the content areas and consequently
increase student achievement.

Be highly selective about which words to teach

Content area terms should be selected for
their use in helping children apply word learning
strategies and for engendering interest in using the
words as tools for meaningful communication
(Blachowicz & Fisher, 2000).

Provide multiple encounters with targeted words

Multiple exposures to content vocabulary
can occur through the use of collaborative, active
tasks and can be supported by technology (Kamil,
2004). The quality of each encounter is important, as
is causing students to use writing, speaking, listening,
and reading when collaborating about targeted words
(Pearson et al., 2007).

Provide students direct instruction on how to infer word meanings

Students need to be shown how meaningful information about vocabulary words
in content text can be derived through contextual
analysis (Graves, 2000; Nation, 2001). Of course, the
more meaningful and authentic the context a teacher
uses the greater the impact on students' ownership of
the targeted terms (Scott et al., 2003).

Provide students with opportunities to extend their word knowledge

Students can be shown
how to use morphemic analysis, awareness of polysemy
(varied meanings), and attention to derivations
and origins to further their knowledge of content vocabulary
and find similar features in new words
(Marzano, 2004). On checking research done with
English-language learners (ELLs) these approaches
were found to be equally as effective
in promoting vocabulary growth
and improved comprehension
with ELLs as with native
speakers of English
(Beck et al., 2002; Carlo
et al., 2004; Nagy,
1997).

Finally, for those
readers who have
not explored the
ReadWriteThink
website (www.Read
WriteThink.org), a joint
project of the International
Reading Association and the
National Council of Teachers of
English, we urge you to do so. There
are numerous examples of complete lessons that reflect
current thought about how best to help students
enlarge their academic vocabulary. Examples such
as "Using Word Storms to Explore Vocabulary" and
"Encourage Critical Thinking" allow teachers to save
time, improve their teaching, and affect student
achievement.

Marzano, R. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic
achievement: Research on what works in schools. Alexandria,
VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. (2005). Preliminary report on the 2004�2005 evaluation
study of the ASCD program for building academic vocabulary.
Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development. Retrieved October 17, 2007, from www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/Building%20Academic%20Vocabulary%20Report.pdf

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000).
Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read:
An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature
on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH publication
No. 00-4769). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.

Marzano, R. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic
achievement: Research on what works in schools. Alexandria,
VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. (2005). Preliminary report on the 2004�2005 evaluation
study of the ASCD program for building academic vocabulary.
Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development. Retrieved October 17, 2007, from www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/Building%20Academic%20Vocabulary%20Report.pdf

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000).
Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read:
An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature
on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH publication
No. 00-4769). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.